You are here: / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S...

Search Results

/

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION.

The Second Department determined father’s in-court actions during mother’s testimony did not provide a sufficient basis for the denial of visitation to father. In addition, the Second Department found that Family Court improperly conditioned future visitation by father upon the results of drug screenings and a mental health evaluation:

… Family Court’s determination to deny the father visitation with the parties’ children is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. ” [V]isitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child'” … . “As a general rule, some form of visitation by the noncustodial parent is always appropriate, absent exceptional circumstances, such as those in which it would be inimical to the welfare of the child or where a parent in some manner has forfeited his or her right to such access'”… .

Here, the Family Court improperly based its determination to deny the father parental access upon the father’s in-court demeanor … , including his inability “to control his temper in open Court” and an instance in which he called the mother “a liar” as she testified. However, no correlation was made between the father’s in-court demeanor and any detrimental effect on the children … . * * *

The Family Court also erred in directing the father to submit to random drug and alcohol screens, test negative, and undergo a comprehensive mental health evaluation as conditions of future visitation. “A court hearing a pending proceeding or action involving issues of custody or visitation may properly order a mental health evaluation of a parent, if warranted, prior to making a custody or visitation determination” … . A court may also “direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order” … . A court may not, however, ” order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights'” … . Matter of Gonzalez v Ross, 2016 NY Slip Op 04413, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION)

/ ,

DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted.  The detective investigating a burglary entered the curtilage of defendant’s home without a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances:

Here, in entering the defendant’s fenced-in rear yard by opening the gate and going through it, the detective entered the curtilage of the defendant’s home … . The People have failed to articulate any exigent circumstances justifying this intrusion and the ensuing warrantless arrest and search … . People v Avinger, 2016 NY Slip Op 04426, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CURTILAGE (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/WARRANTLESS SEARCH (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have entertained a motion to renew in which a document previously rejected because it was not in admissible form was resubmitted in admissible form:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew. “CPLR 2221 (e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . Here, the inadvertent mistake of the plaintiff's attorney in including the unnotarized statement of the chiropractor with the plaintiff's opposition papers, rather than the notarized affidavit, was tantamount to law office failure and constituted a reasonable justification for the plaintiff's failure to provide the affidavit to the court in opposing the original motion … . Defina v Daniel, 2016 NY Slip Op 04381, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO (MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE ((MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND.

The Second Department determined the town did not make the requisite showing for summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The town's motion did not address all of the theories of liability raised in the pleadings:

Here, the plaintiff, in her pleadings, alleged that the Town created the hole in the parking lot that caused her to fall, and that the Town made a special use of the parking lot. Thus, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition, that it did not create the condition, and that it did not make a special use of the parking lot … . Since the Town failed to make this showing, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Breest v Long Is. R.R., 2016 NY Slip Op 04376, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND)/SLIP AND FALL (TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND)

/

BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff, McCrea, was repairing an elevator when it fell on him. The court explained the relevant law, including the criteria for demonstrating an injured worker's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury:

The evidence here establishes that at the time of the accident, McCrea was engaged in “repair” work because the elevator's safety shoes were not operating properly, and the condition was an isolated event, unrelated to normal wear and tear … . In addition, the elevator was a “falling object” within the meaning of the Labor Law, even though it was not actually being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident, because it required securing for the purpose of McCrea's repair work … .

As plaintiff was engaged in activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of the incident, Arnlie, as owner of the building, is subject to absolute liability for injuries which resulted from its failure to provide plaintiff with proper safety devices …, without regard to the comparative fault of plaintiff … . Where the worker is the sole proximate cause of the injury, however, the premises owner will not be liable … . “[T]o raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of an accident, the defendant must produce evidence that adequate safety devices were available, that the plaintiff knew that they were available and was expected to use them, and that the plaintiff unreasonably chose not to do so, causing the injury sustained” … .

Here, there is no indication that plaintiff refused or misused available safety equipment. McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04330, 1st Dept 6-7-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)/ELEVATORS (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)

/ ,

FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined a federal conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was not a qualifying offense under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant had been convicted in Michigan of a qualifying offense, but was not subject to post-release supervision upon release. Where there is no post-release supervision, a defendant is assessed 15 points under the SORA risk analysis. Defendant argued that, because he was subject to federal post-release supervision for failure to register, the 15 points should not be assessed. The First Department held the only relevant offense was the Michigan offense, requiring the 15 point assessment. People v Reid, 2016 NY Slip Op 04366, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)

/ , ,

IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about the grand proceedings and the justification defense from an assistant district attorney (ADA) called as a prosecution witness. In addition, the prosecutor improperly referred to “facts” not in evidence during summation. The defendant was alleged to have fired at police officers who were pursuing him. The testimony of the ADA was elicited in anticipation of a defense the officers testified falsely in the grand jury to protect themselves from indictment for shooting defendant. However, the defendant never raised that defense. The ADA was improperly allowed to explain the justification defense (apparently to show the shooting by the officers was justified) and the grand jury procedure (apparently to demonstrate the grand jury found the officers credible):

Comments regarding grand jury composition and proceedings have repeatedly been held to be improper when made by a court, and the same rationale applies when made by a prosecutor … . * * *

By permitting the witness to instruct the jury on the law of justification during the People's case, and apply the law to the facts of this case, “the court improperly surrendered its nondelegable judicial responsibility” … . “The court's delegation of this critical judicial function to the [prosecutor-witness] significantly impaired the integrity of the proceedings and deprived the defendant of a fair trial” … . * * *

The prosecutor must “stay within the four corners of the evidence,” may not refer to matters not in evidence,” should not “call upon the jury to draw conclusions which are not fairly inferrable from the evidence,” or make arguments that “have no bearing on any legitimate issue in the case” … .

Here, on two separate occasions during his summation, the prosecutor did exactly that. People v Melendez, 2016 NY Slip Op 04328, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)

/ ,

ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The First Department determined the admission of a machine generated blood test for sexually transmitted disease, without the testimony of the technician who operated the machine, did not violate the confrontation clause. The court distinguished a recent Court of Appeals case, People v John, 2016 NY Slip Op 03208, which held an analyst who draws conclusions from raw data must testify before the relevant test results can be admitted:

The lab report at issue here was of the purely “machine generated” category, and the witness whose testimony defendant claims was required was, at best, a technician who tested the accuracy of the machine before placing the sample in it for testing. Under People v John and the U.S. Supreme Court cases on which it relies, the report generated by the machine should not be treated as testimonial, and the absence of testimony by the technician who calibrated the machine did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. “[T]he testing and procedures employed . . . were neither discretionary nor based on opinion; nor did they concern the exercise of fallible human judgment over questions of cause and effect” … . In addition, contrary to defendant’s argument, the report did not directly link him to the crimes, since the “test results, standing alone, shed no light on the guilt of the accused” … , notwithstanding that they provided circumstantial evidence of guilt in light of other evidence. People v Alcivar, 2016 NY Slip Op 04329, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST RESULTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

/

FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined Family Court had the power to order father to serve three consecutive six-month jail terms for willful failure to pay child support. Father never claimed an inability to pay:

The father in this case demonstrated the willful flaunting of support orders the Legislature sought to address in passing the Support Enforcement Act. Without making any attempt at an excuse for inability to pay, the father repeatedly failed to meet his court-ordered support obligations. His conduct resulted in a substantial amount owed in arrears and two suspended orders of commitment, one each in 2010 and 2012, for willfully violating Family Court support orders. Both suspended commitments were conditioned upon the father making timely child support payments. In 2013, Family Court found yet a third willful violation of a prior order, revoked the two suspended orders for the past violations, sentenced the father to a new six-month sentence, resulting in three consecutive six-month sentences. Once again, the father made no attempt to plead an inability to pay or seek modification of the support orders.

In ordering the term of incarceration, Family Court determined that the father willfully failed to comply with his child support obligations on three separate violation petitions and found good cause existed to revoke the father’s two suspended commitments. Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit v Risley, 2016 NY Slip Op 04325, CtApp 6-7-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT)

/ ,

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined, under the Executive Law, a special prosecutor has the authority to bring a criminal case in local court concerning the abuse of vulnerable persons pursuant to the “Protection of People with Special Needs Act.” Defendant unsuccessfully argued the Executive Law limited the power of the special prosecutor to criminal prosecutions in County and Supreme Court:

There is no indication from the statute that the special prosecutor’s powers are limited by section 552 (2) (c). That section merely sets forth the requirement that the special prosecutor consult with the district attorney of the pertinent county should the special prosecutor wish to appear in County Court or Supreme Court, or before the grand jury, for the purposes of managing or conducting before such court or grand jury a criminal action or proceeding involving the abuse or neglect of a vulnerable person. There is no indication that the statute governs proceedings in local courts at all. People v Davidson, 2016 NY Slip Op 04326, CtApp 6-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT)/EXECUTIVE LAW (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT)/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT)/VULNERABLE PERSONS (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT)/PROTECTION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy